The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1887-04-26

is imposed for infraction of this law.
Then chapter 88 of the Penal Code
is cited, prescribing regulations for the
sale, by authorized persons, of poison
GUS drugs to be used as medicine, the
penalty for breach of which is a sum
not exceeding one thousand dollars.
Also, another Act OF 1880, allowing
Chinese physicians to receive licenses to
practise medicine Subject to. the same
laws and restrictions as other licensed
physicians.
Recapitulating the tenor of the vari-
Gus laws above quoted, the Court says:
at would seem that the effect of the
law, chapter IS Of 1880, was to remove
some Of the restrictions of the law Of
1874, and allowed licenses to be issued
to persons outside the physicians men
toned in that law to sell poisonous
drugs, and sell and furnish opium or
its preparations to persons having pre-
scnptions from any duly qualified ply
stefan. And it would also seem that
all persons dealing in poisonous drugs,
of which there can be doubt opium is
one, we're compelled to keep records
of sales, etc. And that no physician
or surgeon could sell or prescribe or
furnish opium or preparations to any
person in the habit of smoking or
otherwise using the same And also
that in consideration of the license fee
the persons licensed could send for
opium themselves, and the Board OF
Health were relieved from the neces-
sity Of importing it."
The Court then come to the law OF
1886, entitled Gan Act to Regulate
the Importation and Sale of Opium in
this Kingdom" which is quoted in full.
They say: "It would seem that the
effect of this Act is to remove many Of
the restrictions relating to the importa.
ton and sale Of opium and its prepare
tons existing at the time the law was
enacted. One other person in add
ton to those persons authorized under
the then existing law was authorized, on
obtaining license, to import and sell
opium and its preparations for the term
Of four years upon paying the license
fee mentioned in the Act"
Their Honors proceed to reason
from this point that, this Act being ex
elusive to one licensee in giving au
thority to import and sell opium, and
that construction not being in conflict
with preceding laws on the subject, the
1886 statute "merely enables one
other person to deal in this poisonou:
drug" In support Of this view, they
adduce the provisions Of the License
Act of 1886, requiring record OF the
opium sold on physicians certificates
a term that they ally with "prescrip
ton and go on to quote the penalty
Of "not less than one thousand mol
more than five thousand dollars, and
imprisonment at hard labor for no
more than ten years nor less than two
years, upon any person not having |
license who shall sell or furnish
opium, ETC., to any person or per
sons contrary to law" Section :
Of the Act OF 1886, they assert, "pre
scribes the same penalty for any per
son who shall have possession Of any
opium contrary to the provisions OF
section 3, but as that section does no
impose any duty upon the purchaser
the decision arrived at in the case o
Manuel Brlto must be followed, and i
must be declared that no punishment
for the mere possession of opium can
be inflicted under that section"
The Court now consider whether
having opium in possession is an
offense under the law of 1874 as
amended by the Act No. IS of 1880
This is the only law which makes the
possession ofopium an offense, and the
possession necessary for conviction
must be contrary to the terms of section
of that Act, hereinbefore set out.
They ask, "Now does the Act of 1886
conflict with this section% Section 3
of I874) In constituting this Act they
"must take into consideration the in
tention of the Legislature SO far as
such intention can be gathered frou
the text Of the Act itself and must give
effect to the Act if possible" The
Legislature had attempted to deal with
and prescribe a punishment for per
sons having opium in their possession
, but had not done so effectively. Th'
| Court could not assume that the effec
! of previous legislation was not in tn,
minds of the legislative body; but OF
E thecontrary must assume that they wer'
conversant with the whole law upol
!. which they werelegislating audit appear
ed TO their Honors that the Legislature
"intended to remove some OF the re
strictions affecting the dealing with tn
r drug in question, and to that exter
, the law would seem to be effectual, "a
e it undoubtedly enables persons pre-
! hibited by former laws to sell this drug
y attempting to prescribe penalt
E for having possession of opium, unde
d certain circumstances, the Legislator
a has shown its intention to deal wit
!, the subject, and it has failed in il